AMD A6-9400 vs Intel Core i5-L16G7 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-L16G7 wins every recorded comparison against the AMD A6-9400. Across five Cinebench tests, the Intel part leads by a consistent margin, with deltas ranging from 20.9% to 21.3%. This is not a close contest; the i5-L16G7 establishes a clear performance advantage in every workload the database measured.

Starting with multi-core performance, the i5-L16G7 scores 281 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 232 for the A6-9400, a 21.1% lead. The gap remains nearly identical in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Intel chip posts 1173 against 969, again a 21.1% difference. In the more demanding Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the i5-L16G7 reaches 2793, while the A6-9400 manages 2309, a 21% advantage. These results show that despite having fewer cores than some competitors, the Intel part's architecture delivers consistently higher throughput in multi-threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core performance tells the same story. The i5-L16G7 scores 89.5 in Cinebench R15 single-core, but the A6-9400 has no recorded score for that specific test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel chip posts 165 versus 136 for the AMD part, a 21.3% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core follows with 394 versus 326, a 20.9% advantage. The consistency of these deltas across both single-core and multi-core tests suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-specific.

The average benchmark score reinforces the pattern. The i5-L16G7 averages 816 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The A6-9400 averages 794, sitting in the 21st percentile. These percentile rankings show both processors are near the lower end of the database's performance spectrum, but the Intel part maintains a measurable edge throughout.

When placed against their nearest rivals, neither processor stands out dramatically. The i5-L16G7's average score of 816 is nearly identical to the Intel Xeon X3440 at 815, the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 at 813, and the Intel Core i7-5550U at 813, with deltas of just 0.1% to 0.4%. It trails the Intel Xeon E5540 by 0.5%. The A6-9400's 794 average is within 0.3% of the AMD A10-7850K and AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G, and within 0.5% of the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770. These rival comparisons place both chips in a tight cluster of older or lower-end processors, but the i5-L16G7 still comes out ahead in every direct head-to-head benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-L16G7 wins all five recorded benchmark categories. There is no test in the database where the AMD A6-9400 takes the lead. This means the Intel part is the stronger choice for both single-core and multi-core workloads, including rendering tasks in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23.

For applications that rely heavily on multi-threaded performance, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific computing, the i5-L16G7 delivers a 21% advantage over the A6-9400 across all multi-core tests. This consistent margin means users running multi-threaded workloads would see noticeably shorter completion times with the Intel processor.

For single-threaded tasks, including everyday desktop responsiveness, web browsing, and office productivity, the i5-L16G7 again leads by roughly 21% in the recorded tests. The Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core scores show the Intel part's superior per-core efficiency, which matters for applications that cannot fully utilize multiple cores.

The AMD A6-9400 does not win any benchmark category in this comparison. Its strengths lie elsewhere, primarily in platform characteristics rather than raw compute performance. The A6-9400 uses a desktop socket, supports dual-channel memory, and has a higher base clock, but these attributes do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

One area where the A6-9400 shows relative strength is its average benchmark score relative to its nearest rivals. With a 794 average, it sits within 0.3% of the AMD A10-7850K and Ryzen Embedded R1606G, meaning it is competitive with those parts. However, this does nothing to close the gap against the i5-L16G7, which maintains a 20.9% to 21.3% lead across all head-to-head tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-L16G7 uses the Lakefield architecture, built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry. It packs 4,050 million transistors into a compact 82 mm² die. The AMD A6-9400, by contrast, uses the Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, manufactured on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 250 mm² die.

Core counts differ significantly. The i5-L16G7 has 5 cores and 5 threads, while the A6-9400 has 2 cores and 2 threads. This gives the Intel part a substantial advantage in raw thread count, which helps explain its multi-core benchmark lead. The AMD chip compensates with higher clock speeds: it runs at a 3.40 GHz base clock and 3.70 GHz boost, while the Intel part operates at 1.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the Intel architecture's efficiency yields better benchmark results.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The i5-L16G7 has 80 KB of L1 cache, 512 KB of L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The A6-9400 offers 160 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of shared L2 cache, but has no L3 cache at all. The presence of L3 cache on the Intel part likely contributes to its superior single-core performance, as it reduces memory latency for frequently accessed data.

Memory support differs as well. The i5-L16G7 uses LPDDR4X memory in a single-channel configuration, providing 17.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The A6-9400 uses DDR4 memory in a dual-channel setup, delivering 38.4 GB/s. Despite the AMD part's higher memory bandwidth, the Intel chip still wins all compute benchmarks, suggesting that memory bandwidth is not the limiting factor in these workloads.

Integrated graphics also differ. The i5-L16G7 features Intel UHD Graphics with 64 execution units, while the A6-9400 includes Radeon R5 graphics. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so no performance comparison is possible from the recorded data.

Power consumption is another major divergence. The i5-L16G7 has a TDP of 7 watts, making it suitable for fanless or low-power mobile designs. The A6-9400 has a TDP of 65 watts, typical of a desktop processor. This nearly tenfold difference in power envelope explains the Intel part's mobile market segment and the AMD part's desktop positioning.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner: the Intel Core i5-L16G7 outperforms the AMD A6-9400 in every recorded benchmark. If the choice is purely about compute performance, based on the database measurements, the Intel part is the superior option.

The i5-L16G7's 5 cores and 5 threads provide a decisive advantage in multi-threaded workloads, delivering 21% higher scores in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. Its single-core performance is equally strong, with 20.9% to 21.3% higher scores in the recorded single-core tests. This makes it the better choice for users who prioritize rendering speed, video editing, or any application that scales with core count.

The A6-9400, while competitive with its nearest rivals in the database, cannot match the Intel part's performance. Its 2 cores and 2 threads limit its multi-threaded capabilities, and its single-core scores also fall short. However, the A6-9400 has its own advantages: it uses a standard desktop socket (AM4), supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with higher bandwidth, and consumes 65 watts, which is typical for desktop systems. These platform features may appeal to users building a desktop PC with upgrade potential or those who need the higher memory bandwidth for other tasks.

The Intel i5-L16G7 is the pick for mobile or low-power systems, given its 7-watt TDP and compact 82 mm² die. The AMD A6-9400 is the pick for desktop builds where socket compatibility and memory bandwidth matter more than raw benchmark scores. The recorded data shows the Intel part wins every performance test, but the AMD part offers platform characteristics that may be relevant for specific use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-L16G7 wins all multi-core benchmarks, scoring 281 versus 232 in Cinebench R15, 1173 versus 969 in R20, and 2793 versus 2309 in R23, with deltas of 21% or higher.

Q: Does the AMD A6-9400 win any benchmark?

A: No, the database records zero wins for the AMD A6-9400. The Intel Core i5-L16G7 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The i5-L16G7 averages 816, within 0.5% of the Intel Xeon E5540, Xeon X3440, Core 2 Extreme QX9775, and Core i7-5550U. The A6-9400 averages 794, within 0.5% of the AMD A10-5800B, A10-7850K, Ryzen Embedded R1606G, and Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core i5-L16G7 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The AMD A6-9400 has 2 cores and 2 threads.

Q: Which processor has a lower power draw?

A: The Intel Core i5-L16G7 has a TDP of 7 watts, while the AMD A6-9400 has a TDP of 65 watts.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Intel Core i5-L16G7 supports LPDDR4X in single-channel mode with 17.1 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD A6-9400 supports DDR4 in dual-channel mode with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-L16G7 | AMD A6-9400 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 5 | 2 |

| Threads | 5 | 2 |

| Base Clock | 1.40 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 7 W | 65 W |

| Socket | None listed | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Lakefield | Excavator |

| Codename | Lakefield | Bristol Ridge |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 4,050 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 82 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 160 KB |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 1 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Support | LPDDR4X | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 17.1 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 6 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 64EU | Radeon R5 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Launch MSRP | $281 | None listed |

| Part Number | SRH4U, SRJGA | AD9400AGABBOX |